Tuesday, January 4, 2011

What Are Israel's Wars About?

Yesterday I mentioned the outlandish worldview held by some of Israel's radical left, and I focused on Dan Yakir, the legal counsel at ACRI. Seen from my vantage point, he and his colleagues are immune to rational thinking, and he's convinced the same is true of me (and most of Israeli society, since I'm a mainstream centrist). All of which is mildly odd, when you keep in mind that Dan and I are of a similar age, we live in the same small society even if in different segments of it, in the same very small country, and in the same language; we've even known each other, in a lazy sort of way, for perhaps 15 years. Yet not only do we disagree, we can't even find the common ground on which to base a discussion of our disagreements.

The world is often like that. The really surprising thing isn't that people have incompatible understandings of the world, but that people attribute their own understanding to everyone else; that observers interpret the actions of others through the prism of how the observers think, not the observed; that professional observers insist on the hubris of applying their own standards to the actions of the people they're observing.

Take The Economist - one of the most professional and intelligent set of observers and reporters anywhere, the top of their profession. Their leading article this week is about how the Obama administration must - must - force a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict on the warring sides. Set aside the abysmal silliness in the assumption that America, or anyone, can force warring societies to stop being warring societies, if they wish to continue warring, or even if only one side so wishes. Old King Canute couldn't even stop the rising tide, and that was only about dry and predictable laws of physics, with nary any human agents or irrationalities at all.

But as I said, let's not be distracted by technicalities. Instead, let's focus on the heart of the matter:
To start with, at least, peace will be incomplete: Iran, Hizbullah and sometimes Hamas say that they will never accept a Jewish state in the Middle East. But it is the unending Israeli occupation that gives these rejectionists their oxygen. Give the Palestinians a state on the West Bank and it will become very much harder for the rejectionists to justify going to war.
The Weltanschauung behind that paragraph is that most people in the region, foremost the majority of the Palestinians, would prefer peace and dignity in a small but sovereign Palestine, over war and conflict with no sovereignty. That a small reality is better than a large dream.

(As an aside allow me to wonder how often the forbears of the English (the Economist is London-based) preferred small realities to big dreams. Then let me wonder if preferring small realities to big dreams might not have prevented the coming into existence of, say, the United States of America, partly through the work of English dreamers. Assuming small realities always trump big dreams is pure bunk. But I digress.)

What if, however, most Palestinians, Arabs, and even Muslims, truly and fervently believe that the dream of No Israel is an inevitable certainty, ordained by God or History or Destiny or Justice or All of the Above? What if they feel that a small sovereign Palestinian state alongside a Jewish one is not only not a goal worthy of pursuing, it's an abomination? Or if not an abomination, at most it's a cynical stepping-stone on the road to the inevitable No Israel?

I'm not saying that's the reality. I'm merely broaching the theoretical possibility, so as to ponder what the practical implications might then be.That's what pundits are supposed to do, isn't it? To imagine different possibilities and outcomes?

Then again, perhaps it is the reality. You may have seen this article by Saeb Erekat, a few weeks back. Erekat is the top Palestinian negotiator under Mahmoud Abbas. He has been around for many years. No description of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations will ever fail to mention how moderate he is, how close and warm his relations with his Israeli counterparts in the peace-making camp. Erekat is often held up as living proof for the viability, indeed, the near inevitability, of peace, if only the Israelis would desist from their various stubbornness.
This period of dispossession, known to Palestinians as al-Nakba or "the catastrophe", is the seminal Palestinian experience and source of our collective identity. In fact, the current Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, is himself a refugee displaced from the city of Safed during the 1948 war when he was only 13-years-old.
Today, Palestinian refugees constitute more than 7 million people worldwide – 70% of the entire Palestinian population. Disregarding their legitimate legal rights enshrined in international law, their understandable grievances accrued over prolonged displacement, and their aspirations to return to their homeland, would certainly make any peace deal signed with Israel completely untenable.
Does that sound like a man who is yearning for a small reality over a distant dream? True, at the end of the article he tacks on some weasel words about how giving the Palestinians the right to overturn Israel's victory in a defensive war in 1948 "will not change the reality in the Middle East overnight, nor will it lead to an existential crisis for Israel."- but that's actually for Israel to determine, not for him, so the words are meaningless.

Just last week I read Jonathan Spyer's excellent new book Transforming Fire: The Rise of the Israel-Islamist Conflict, which I hope to review sometime soon. In the meantime, however, here's a taster, from page 63 where Jonathan sums up the section on Hamas:
Hamas among the Palestinians is now articulating the deep sense of strategic optimism that has always characterized the Palestinian and broader Arab and Muslim views viz a viz Israel. According to this view, the existence of Israel is in opposition to the natural state of affairs in the region, and to the usual laws of human development. Since this is the case, what is required is to keep the struggle going, never to give in, until the final victory.
[He then describes an interview he made with Nizar, a Hamas leader in Ramallah, in 2008]
The Israelis, he said, nowadays just wanted to be left alone. Gone were the days when they sought to expand and conquer. The Zionist project, he said, had begun with the desire to to create a Jewish state between the Nile and the Euphrates rivers. Then, because of Arab resistance, this ambition had shrunk to a desire to expand Jewish control to the entire area between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea. Determined Arab and Muslim resistance had now shrunk Zionist ambitions even further.Now, all the Israelis wanted was to be able to keep what they had. But this, too, was only a stage...
The fact that the Jews, in his view, now wanted only to be left with the current situation, was proof that the way of resistence was correct, and was in the process of delivering victory...
Here was a genuinely held ideological position. Nizar, unable to leave Ramallah because of fear of arrest at the hands of the IDF, harried by the security forces of Mahmoud Abbas, was calmly confident of the utter inevitability of the Muslim victory in the long, slow war of attrition of which he was a part.
The last time the Palestinians had free elections Hamas won hands down. The Economist, like all good media, knew this was because Fatah was corrupt, not because anything about the message of Hamas appealed to Palestinian voters. How they acquired this certainty was never explained. The implication was that Western pundits couldn't imagine a centuries-long conflict to rectify nature, so the Palestinians obviously couldn't, either. This in spite of the irrefutable fact that Dan Yakir and I can't even agree on the motivation of a judge in one of our minor courts.

16 comments:

RK said...

You know, Yaacov, it's probably safe to assume that the Economist's journalists are aware the standard counterarguments, viz. that a hypothetical Palestinian government wouldn't be willing or able to suppress rejectionist elements, leading to the Palestinian state becoming an Iranian satellite, missiles landing on Natbag, a continuation of low-intensity warfare, etc. That article is aimed at people who reject these arguments already.

As an intellectual exercise, I propose that everyone writing about this try and avoid their favorite memes for a week: the "cycle of violence," the arrogance of European commentators on Israel, how the Israeli government is in thrall to the settlers, how the Muslim worldview can't deal with an assertive Jewish state in the Middle East.

It's kind of telling that every line from this great "Eretz Nehederet" sketch could have been taken from this blog: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yz7FHI9JD0

(The best one is the cynical five-year-old Yaacovette: "Hayiti smolanit, aval hitpakachti")

RK said...

You know, Yaacov, it's probably safe to assume that the Economist's journalists are aware the standard counterarguments, viz. that a hypothetical Palestinian government wouldn't be willing or able to suppress rejectionist elements, leading to the Palestinian state becoming an Iranian satellite, missiles landing on Natbag, a continuation of low-intensity warfare, etc. That article is aimed at people who reject these arguments already.

It would be interesting to see writers on this topic try to avoid their favorite memes for a week, perhaps as an intellectual exercise: the "cycle of violence," the arrogance of European commentators on Israel, how the Israeli government is in thrall to the settlers, how the Muslim worldview can't deal with an assertive Jewish state in the Middle East.

It's kind of telling that every line from this great "Eretz Nehederet" sketch could have been taken from this blog: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yz7FHI9JD0

(The best one is the cynical five-year-old Yaacovette: "Hayiti smolanit, aval hitpakachti")

Barry Meislin said...

Give the Palestinians a state on the West Bank and it will become very much harder for the rejectionists to justify going to war.

This is, of course, the nonsense at the crux of the matter.

(And since the Palestinians---at least those who make the decisions---are, in fact, all rejectionists (not to mention prevaricating provocateurs), it is also the main reason why the Palestinians will never accept a state.)

But, hey, so what, everyone has there own "narrative," right?

(And Europe, steeped in blood, just wants to do the right thing....)

Y. Ben-David said...

Yaacov-
Your postings are usually so right on and you are 95% of the way there to a true understanding of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I can't understand why you don't go all the way and realize that it is VITAL that Israel NOT GIVE UP ANY SETTLEMENTS. It is the settlements that are the stick in the gears of the Palestinian attempt to get rid of Israel. You yourself brought the quote that proves this!
Nizar said that the Israel's horizon's have shrunk so it is only a matter of time until they are completely defeated. Dismantling settlements pours gasoline on the flames...it proves to them the Qur'anic description of the Jews as weaklings and cowards is true, that the modern Islamic movements HAMAS and HIZBULLAH are the only true bearers of the struggle against Israel. When Israel destroyed Gush Katif, it brought HAMAS to power, their control of Gaza and two wars with Israel.
The ONLY way a modus-vivendi (not a contractual peace which is impossible) can eventually be reached is by Israel refusing to make any more territorial or political concessions and by strengthening Jewish settlement in Judea/Samaria. This proves to the Arabs that Israel is here to stay and radical political Islam is leading them to a dead end. Anything else is simplyl slow suicide.

Anonymous said...

I take Yaacov's point that we should be careful not to project our worldview onto others, but the opposite point holds, too: we should be careful about concluding people are radically, inscrutably different. Unfortunately, that kind of thinking has a long, fairly ugly history when it comes to the Middle East, where it seems acceptable to posit some impenetrable "Arab," "Muslim," or "Oriental" mindset that simply cannot be fathomed by us Westerners and, in doing so, be seen to be in possession of some deeply sophisticated view about human nature and nuanced understanding of Middle Eastern history.

That's not to say that I don't think members of Hamas think differently from me, but they do so in the same way fanatical, fundamentalist zealots all over the world do. Similarly, my (admittedly somewhat limited) experience living in Arab societies (Egypt and Syria) has shown me that most people in those societies don't really think that differently from me. They're normal people, with the normal concerns and motivations of most people.

And that's what tends to convince me to side with the Economist's writers. I don't doubt the deep-seated antipathy toward Israel (and, of course, Jews) felt by large numbers of Arabs. But, like people all over the world who hold strong or even rabid political views, those antipathies and hatreds don't lead them to do much of anything other than lend their rhetorical support to the Palestinians. This in spite of the constant grist produced for Hamas' (and other Islamists') mill in the occupied territories. And so while I agree with Yaacov that die-hards in Hamas will never give up the struggle, given that the overwhelming majority of Arabs do absolutely nothing now to support the brethren they see as suffering horrible injustices, it seems clear to me that the establishment of a Palestinian state will can only have a decidedly positive impact.

rukn

Barry Meislin said...

...the establishment of a Palestinian state will can only have a decidedly positive impact.

And will be good for Israel.

And that's precisely why it won't happen.

You fail to understand the goal. And the strategy. And the tactics.

You and millions and millions of others.

(To be sure, your ability to assume and project are truly impressive, along with the ability to ignore and disregard. And needless to say, you are correct, of course, in theory. People should do what is in their best interests. What you, and the others, "merely" fail to perceive is that the Palestinians know what is their best interests, in spite of everyone else's best intentions.)

The never-ending flood of lies flowing from the lips of Israel's partners in peace---aside from their cultural dimension (and we, of course, are all cultural relativists now!!)---are means to an end. And are thus permissable, necessary, desirable.

Like the Soviet Union of yore (whose re-emergence we may see in our lifetime, may we be so fortunate---according to some), those lies are not lies but resources, tools, weapons. (To be used against an enemy with fighter jets? With a standing army? With nuclear weapons?)

That is, they are therefore not lies but the truth---the truth in a society saturated by dishonesty, and the concommitant brutality, intimidation and terror that must necessarily be an integral part of it.

Which no amount of ignoring, either by the Economist or by you or by anyone else will change.

Most Israelis have learned this most unpleasant reality the hard way---after all, peace was around the corner (and still may be in the deep, dim recesses of Shimon Peres's carefully coiffed cortex). But they, at least, have learned it.

While others insist that it is Israel's imperfections that are (so, so frustratingly obviously) the cause of the frustrating impasse, rather than the murderous perversity of Israel's partners in peace and their simple goals.

Alas, unfortunately, this is not a board game or a game of cards or football, or tennis.

The Palestinians are playing for keeps. And there is no room for anything called "Israel" on their map.

Danny said...

People really, really want Israel to be evil. Just look at this post and its comments to see how people enjoy the prospect of Israel's evil future:

Israel's Fundamentalist Future:

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/12/israels-fundamentalist-future

Barry Meislin said...

Lies, ambulances, consular vehicles.

Everything, everything is permissable to achieve the goal.

The goal. Remember, the goal. (Keep it firmly in focus.)

http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=202082

Silke said...

(And Europe, steeped in blood, just wants to do the right thing....)

yes Barry "we" have a lot to prove and which better scenario to prove it on than telling Jews how to do it right this time around. Thereby not only telling them how to save themselves from a threat but also proving that when all is said and done, if only they had behaved more wisely they might have prevented ...
No better exculpation imaginable - and if they don't follow "our" advice and things turn out badly then we may wash our hands and say "we told you so" -
I assume you can agree that it is a perfect win-win for "us".

NormanF said...

As long as the Palestinians think destroying Israel is an achievable aim, they will not settle for less than what they can get. There is no difference in this outlook between Hamas and Fatah - only a difference of tactical emphasis.

There is not going to be peace had in our lifetime because the Palestinian ideology has remained unchanged for decades. For Israel to consent to a Palestinian state under these circumstances, would be agreeing to commit national suicide. No Israeli government is going agree to this arrangement.

Peace in the Middle East is a long ways off.

Barry Meislin said...

All very true; but I was thinking more of the more recent extravaganza in the former Yugoslavia, in the 90s.

The EU doing their very concerned and earnest best to "manage" conflict.

And then, of course, there's this:
1.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/evelyn-gordon/385399
2.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/evelyn-gordon/385185

Silke said...

in the context of the current Abu Rahma story commenter Geoff asked this question at EoZ:

if israel causes the death of arabs on a daily basis...why lie?

trying to answer it I came to realise that the lie pays of because it is suffering Palestinian that will be remembered, lie or no lie alike and it will be another victory scored because nobody will call Erekat and/or Abbas publicly to task about the "war crime" allegation which would create a for both parties embarrassing situation. The "west" becoming accusable of such rudeness that again the liars will be able to collect "we suffer" points.

or the short version thereof, all in all there will have been a lot more media brouhaha about Palestinian suffering because of a lie and its debunking than would have been about a "simple" death.

and thus they will have once more proved that they know how to muzzle the "west" effectively.

Silke said...

I think Evelyn Gordon leaves "us" off the hook there too easily (and I find the example non-convincing i.e. leaving out the question of who dominates the waters of the Eastern Mediterranean). There is more to it than the EU bumbling it because of a more and more apparent lack of a capable of decisions structure.

Only yesterday I listened to a British MP, former student of Rawls, confessing in almost choking up mode to exactly the stuff John Gray is criticising here. My take is the pendulum has swung way too far into the opposite direction and if a pendulum can swing in a circle it is soon to meet up with its opposites but of course this time for all the right reasons. ;-(
(and no matter what else Europe does, as long as Germany has an important say in it, the wish for exculpation is always colouring the background)

http://nationalinterest.org/bookreview/what-rawls-hath-wrought-4570

The NL announced it as „John Gray condemns Human Rights.“

Silke said...

here is RK's "Yaacovette" video with English subtitles and what I found to say about it

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/01/morning-links.html#comment-123848765

BTW "Yaacovette" very funny, the English translation doesn't have a Yaacovette so the intended insult falls a wee bit short, doesn't it?

and to youngsters it may be unimaginable but sometimes the mainstream gets it right. When I believed what the left told me in the early 60s I got it right, if I'd believe their denying reality hyperbole of today I'd get it wrong.

The important thing is to avoid to follow the swing of the pendulum all the way to the extreme while upholding for oneself to some basic decency rules.

ZJ said...

"legitimate legal rights"
makes me laugh, everytime.

MSS said...

One small amendment: Hamas did not win the 2006 election "hands down." They managed 44% of the party vote, against 41% for Fatah.

Abysmal electoral-system design turned that narrow plurality into a big majoritu in the PLC.